This is a perfect example of how so many people on the left become so misguided and so easily manipulated.

My new roommate is a Progressive. She is also heavily into politics. She is a top member of the state's Civic League, and she spends all morning on the internet reading and posting about political stuff. She travels to the Capitol 2 times per week for meetings, etc. After that, she spends most of the rest of the day and night watching mostly MSNBC(70%) and CNN(30%).

She doesnt work, as her Mom left her money years before she died, and gave her a home. So she spends FAR, FAR more time learning about politics than any of us 'working people' do.

But.......she is clueless and misguided due to the sources she gets her info from. I already spoke of MSNBC and CNN, but while online in the AM, she gets that info from Mother Jones, Daily Kos, and also gets Tweets from other left-wing sources.

Now we've all heard of "Sanctuary Cities" right? Well, as I said this topic is about why Progressives are so misguided. I mentioned sanctuary cites today during a conversation with her, and I described what they are, and that they are created primarily by Liberal Dems. She quickly challenged me, and asked "what is this sanctuary cities stuff you are talking about?" She looked puzzled! She had absolutely no idea what a sanctuary city even is! She had never heard of it. So I described how these cities are used by Liberal Dems to ignore federal law by refusing to deport ANYONE here illegally, and refusing to EVER ask for proof of citizenship. They also refuse to deport criminal, felon illegal immigrants, which is directly in violation of US law, and it puts everyone in those communities at risk, because most of these ex prisoners WILL re-offend! That makes us all victims, but the dems do it to play to the Latino community. Philadelphia became another sanctuary city just about 2 years ago, when the Democrat mayor said he'd no longer deport criminal illegals after being released from prison.

After I told my roommate about all that stuff, she shook her head and said "that would be against federal law and the Democrats wouldnt do that!" I asked "Are you kidding me?" The federal govt under Obama has cut back on workplace enforcement(raids) by about 95%. She denied the existence of sanctuary cities, and said she'd have to look into it!

The truth is, her left wing sources have never told her, or other liberals about the existence of sanctuary cities. Thats why she doesnt know about it.

She then started blaming 100% of illegal immigration on Republicans. I agreed that they shouldve done more, but I pointed out that Bush increased border funds 300% and increased border guard workers 200% in about 2006. She knew nothing about that either of course. She then said "Bush lost in 2004 due to his weakness on controlling illegal immigration." I then pointed out that Bush actually won in 2004! To that she said "Oh, ah.. yeah...well, I meant to say, he lost momentum in 2004."

So I told her of more facts and statistics, to that she said "Dont give me these facts and stats, I know what I'm talking about because I've read about it over and over! The Republicans are almost entirely to blame for illegal immigration, and the Dems dont support illegal immigration!" Again, the problem is.....her left wing sources, who manipulate her 24-7.

I tried to point out the ridiculous clauses put into the Dream act by the Dems, which is why it was defeated. She said "The Dream act is only designed to allow young illegal immigrant kids to stay and go to school, and get citizenship!" So gullible! Who here considers a 36 year old illegal immigrant to be a "kid?" It also allowed the entire extended families of illegals under the dream act to be able to to come here and be guaranteed citizenship, which would mean millions, and millions of more illegals, who arent kids! She knew nothing about that either and denied it! "The Dems wouldnt do that!"

Every time I walk by her TV, I hear MSNBC or CNN, and its ALWAYS about the terrible, corrupt Republicans and their war on women, and how they want to steal from the poor, how they want to do away with ALL government benefits to the poor, and all sorts of other assorted nonsense, but absolutely NO criticism of the Democrats or Obama of course!

To be honest, even though the left routinely demonize Fox News, if you've watched it pretty much any time for the last year, they've been somewhat balanced(except for Hannity). They still have guests on every show with liberal opinions as well as conservative opinions. That pretty much DOES NOT EXIST on MSNBC, and barely on CNN. Same on every other news network.

First you start by saying progressives. Then you end with liberals. From the sounds of it, your roommate is a liberal, not progressive. There is a slight difference between them.

Secondly, liberals tend to be more well-off financially than progressives. Progressives tend to be more of the working class people with maybe some upper class people. So again, that sounds like she's a liberal.

Third, I have no idea how old she is. I'm guessing in her late teens/early 20's. I also don't know about her background other than her being inherently rich.

As for her sources, I don't see anything wrong with that. Just as long as there are other sources that she refers to. For example, I watch CNN and MSNBC. But I also watch PBS and some Fox News. Additionally, Fox News isn't always fair and balance as they say. I do watch The Five now that they've gotten rid of Glen Beck. MAYBE what you can do is introduce her to certain Fox shows that are not too radical for her - like The Five.

About sanctuary cities, I heard about that on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. There are just some topics that are "hot topics" while others that are not. When Lou Dobbs was on CNN, he use to talk alot about the hot topics and I appreciated that. But look at CNN now. The landscape of that network has changed and I have to say, not for the good. If she's just now watching CNN, the programming of today is what's influencing her.

Regarding deportation, that's really a federal issue, not a state issue. Even though the state may reserve the right to deport someone, they may not have the money to do so. And the border security issue, that could have been handled alot better. I mean, who came up with the idea of a virtual fence? That person NEEDED to be smacked for that idea. How much money was wasted on that project?

Lastly, the Dream Act is conceptually a good idea. The details is where it kills it. I mean citizenship to an illegal immigrant? Not even residency, but citizenship to someone not born here. This is why we need to have a new set of laws like Class 1 Residency for amnesty purposes. Class 2 Residency for people who come here legally. And THEN citizenship for natural births or legal immigrations. But that's too simple of an idea for Congress to come up with.

Ask your roommate how would she address immigration in this country. See whether or not she actually understands the complexity of the situation. Then you can officially label her a liberal.

We need to just do away with "birth right citizenship". We are one of the few industrialized nations in the world who have it. It was put into place because no one knew what to do with the freed slaves and that is no longer an issue. It was never meant to be used as an anchor keeping the parents here because their child is a citizen.
Second, you are way off about liberals and progressives. They are basically all the same, communist would be just as good a word IMO. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, he had money. Same with all the demoncrats of the early 20th century including FDR. Go back to that other thread about the kind of college you went to and that will explain a lot of the problems with your way of thinking.

First you start by saying progressives. Then you end with liberals. From the sounds of it, your roommate is a liberal, not progressive. There is a slight difference between them.

Secondly, liberals tend to be more well-off financially than progressives. Progressives tend to be more of the working class people with maybe some upper class people. So again, that sounds like she's a liberal.

Third, I have no idea how old she is. I'm guessing in her late teens/early 20's. I also don't know about her background other than her being inherently rich.

As for her sources, I don't see anything wrong with that. Just as long as there are other sources that she refers to. For example, I watch CNN and MSNBC. But I also watch PBS and some Fox News. Additionally, Fox News isn't always fair and balance as they say. I do watch The Five now that they've gotten rid of Glen Beck. MAYBE what you can do is introduce her to certain Fox shows that are not too radical for her - like The Five.

About sanctuary cities, I heard about that on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. There are just some topics that are "hot topics" while others that are not. When Lou Dobbs was on CNN, he use to talk alot about the hot topics and I appreciated that. But look at CNN now. The landscape of that network has changed and I have to say, not for the good. If she's just now watching CNN, the programming of today is what's influencing her.

Regarding deportation, that's really a federal issue, not a state issue. Even though the state may reserve the right to deport someone, they may not have the money to do so. And the border security issue, that could have been handled alot better. I mean, who came up with the idea of a virtual fence? That person NEEDED to be smacked for that idea. How much money was wasted on that project?

Lastly, the Dream Act is conceptually a good idea. The details is where it kills it. I mean citizenship to an illegal immigrant? Not even residency, but citizenship to someone not born here. This is why we need to have a new set of laws like Class 1 Residency for amnesty purposes. Class 2 Residency for people who come here legally. And THEN citizenship for natural births or legal immigrations. But that's too simple of an idea for Congress to come up with.

Ask your roommate how would she address immigration in this country. See whether or not she actually understands the complexity of the situation. Then you can officially label her a liberal.

My roommate is about 50.

When a criminal illegal immigrant is released from prison, it is the state's responsibility to turn that felon over to ICE for immediate deportation. These Liberal Dems in sanctuary cities are REFUSING to turn them over for deportation! They are refusing to advice customs/immigration that they are being released, and refusing to turn them over, which by Federal law, they are supposed to do!

They usually "claim" that the reason they are doing this, is because by allowing these criminal illegals to return to their neighborhoods in these cities, that the Latino community will be so joyously happy, that they will 'begin' working with the local police to help capture local criminals or they will be more likely to give information to the police

Thats complete B.S.! Even in cities where they've been releasing criminal illegals back into the community for many years, there has been no increase in the Latino community's desire to help the police catch criminals or to be witnesses to crimes they've seen happen right in front of them! Look at LA and NYC. The Latino community are just as likely to refuse to help police than in the black community!

The real reason the left and Dms want illegal felons returned to the communities, is they believe they will garner more political support from the Latino community for doing so. Its the same reason they block every attempt at dealing with illegals in a law abiding manner, and its why they they always pander to the Latino community by giving them all sorts of taxpayer funded entitlements as soon as they arrive here usually!

NorthernSoutherner - There is some truth to what you're saying. I'm just not convinced it's entirely the Democrats. Bush had his opportunity to do more and the virtual fence is proof that sometimes he was too serious. I hold both parties responsible for the current immigration situation.

Second, you are way off about liberals and progressives. They are basically all the same, communist would be just as good a word IMO. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, he had money. Same with all the demoncrats of the early 20th century including FDR. Go back to that other thread about the kind of college you went to and that will explain a lot of the problems with your way of thinking.

Really? What problems do I have with my way of thinking?

If you get rid of the "birth right citizenship" that would probably get rid of your citizenship as well as mine. If you're for unintended consequences, then by all means get rid of that notion.

In that other thread, the point I was making is the setback a flat average grading system has. Even though the grading system was implemented in a mid-size university (not community college), it still was problematic.

On paper, it seemed like I was a C average student. I wasn't. That's one of the problem with that system. It makes it seem like a student is something when in reality they are not.

Just like this message board. You can type all you want and make it seem like you know what you're saying. In reality, other posters can see that you don't.

If you think that liberals, progressives and communists are all the same because they're wealthy, then that's your opinion. If you think they're the same because they believe in welfare benefits, that's your opinion. If you think they're the same because they believe in universal healthcare, again that's your opinion. And that will explain a lot of the problems with your way of thinking.

They are all Statists ...and social engineers ... They all are anti-freedom, at least for the groups that they define as undeserving. They all are forced to take from others in order to provide to someone else..

I am sorry individual liberty trumps all and should be protected at all costs. it is a slippery slope..liberals and progressives should be very careful for what they wish for because the unintended consequences are a Bitch ...

If you get rid of the "birth right citizenship" that would probably get rid of your citizenship as well as mine. If you're for unintended consequences, then by all means get rid of that notion.

I was kidding about your way of thinking.
As for birth right citizenship, how would that get rid of yours or mine? My parents were both citizens of this country and I was born here. That is the requirement in most European countries. The problem we have in this country is the only requirement to being a citizen is to be born here. Doesn't matter if your parents were citizens or not. LIke I said, that was an amendment to the constitution to deal with freed slaves after the civil war. It was never intended to be used in the way it is today. If you live in Germany for instance, and you have a work visa but are not a citizen and you have children born in Germany while you are there under a work visa, they are not citizens of Germany. That is the way it should be here as well.

If you think that liberals, progressives and communists are all the same because they're wealthy,

Huh? If that is what you think I was saying then you obviously misunderstood my point.

Good point Woodstock, the citizenship laws in our nation need to be revised to the reality of today, not the problems of Slavery and Jim Crow laws in the past.

Should be this:

Parents citizens: You are a citizen of the US regardless of where you are born.

Parents not citizens of the USA? You are a citizen of whatever country they are from.

Parents have more than one citizenship? You are a dual citizen if you want. (IE: Mom is US, and Dad is Dutch, you are both regardless of where you are born.)

No more walk over the border, drop your child, and then anchor yourself to the US welfare teat for 18 years raising your "citizen" child.

That's BS, and needs to end, and end now.

Want to be a citizen of this nation? My view is this:

1) Join the military for 4 years. You are in like flint, and thanks for your service.
2) Buy property and pay property taxes. You put down roots here when you buy your house/land/property, and that's good enough for me to include you as a US Citizen. Wecome to America!

Should we have worker programs? Absolutely. Should we be paying for the healthcare, welfare and other care of tens of millions of illegals? Additionally, should we be dealing with millions of criminals who come here?

HELL NO.

So, let's lay out an example: You are from Mexico, but you decide that the drug wars, and other problems make it no longer safe for you to live there.

You sell your home in Mexico, and buy a house in Austin, TX, and get a job there in Austin.

Welcome to America my fellow citizen.

Another thing that HAS to change, and the sooner the better, is language.

No more special classes for kids that don't speak English. If you can't speak English, you don't need Math, or Science, or Social Studies, you need ENGLISH CLASSES.

When these kids have learned the language, then you can worry about the rest of your education. Let's keep it simple folks, and clean up wasted spending on classes/teachers for kids who can not read/write and speak our language, but are being taught ANYTHING but ENGLISH.

I was kidding about your way of thinking.
As for birth right citizenship, how would that get rid of yours or mine? My parents were both citizens of this country and I was born here. That is the requirement in most European countries. The problem we have in this country is the only requirement to being a citizen is to be born here. Doesn't matter if your parents were citizens or not. LIke I said, that was an amendment to the constitution to deal with freed slaves after the civil war. It was never intended to be used in the way it is today. If you live in Germany for instance, and you have a work visa but are not a citizen and you have children born in Germany while you are there under a work visa, they are not citizens of Germany. That is the way it should be here as well.

Huh? If that is what you think I was saying then you obviously misunderstood my point.

Birthright citizenship is one of the main reasons why illegal immigrants are having kids at record numbers that are much higher than any other race in the country, even though most of them cannot afford to have that many kids. I was watching a guy on CNN who pointed out that in Mexico, birthrates are way down, but as soon as those same people sneak into America, the birthrates skyrocket! Again, its happening even though they cant afford to have these kids, for 2 reasons. A. They are using their kids as anchor babies, and B. It makes it MUCH easier to get onto social services and the entitlements like welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc.

The Democrats and the Liberal elite are not only supportive of all this, they encourage it! More government dependency, means more victim voters for the Dems. They will brainwash these people into believing that they MUST depend on the left and the Dems for their very survival. As a result, they MUST ALWAYS vote for Dems. They will be convinced that they have NO hope of success, and that everyone is out to get them. Same exact strategy used to keep blacks 'in line', and keep them voting out of sheer fear!

So the left does not want the birthright guarantee to end, because it encourages MORE illegal immigrants to come here, and because they are having huge numbers of mostly out of wedlock babies, these babies will grow up to be the next generation of "victim voters" for the Dems!

It kills me when people actually fall for this line that the Dems are the "champions of the minorities and the little guy". That couldnt be further from the truth! They dont help these "little people" out of victim-hood, they ensure they remain in victim-hood for their own political and ideological benefit!

NorthernSoutherner - There is some truth to what you're saying. I'm just not convinced it's entirely the Democrats. Bush had his opportunity to do more and the virtual fence is proof that sometimes he was too serious. I hold both parties responsible for the current immigration situation.

I agree. I would give Bush the same grade I give Obama. A big fat 'D'! Bush started building a fence, and Obama stopped it. The line that the left use that fences dont work is another failed argument. SanDiego used to be one of the biggest border crossing points for illegals. So they built a fence. Then illegal immigrant border crossings PLUMMETED! They started crossing elsewhere, but at least it helped the people of San Diego.

So you build a new fence where they are now crossing, and make it more and more difficult for them to cross! You supplement the fence with border security, and that will reduce the number of illegals.

I am no longer in favor of giving amnesty or worker visas to the 25-40 million illegals here now. If it was 5 million, then I'd be ok with granting worker visas, but not 25-40 million! We DO NOT HAVE THE JOBS for 25-40 million illegals! Look around your communities, tell me they arent now taking blue collar jobs that are desperately needed by Americans who dont go to college!
They arent just picking fruit anymore. They are taking construction jobs, auto jobs, restaurant/food service jobs, factory jobs, etc.

We also shouldnt give citicenship to illegals who sneak over and buy houses, because what will happen then, is the dems will start programs guaranteeing home loans to illegals in order to get more of them here, which will bankrupt us!

With this statement, you've pretty much nailed EVERY lib-prog in America today.

I'm convinced it's something in their genetic make-up that precludes them from having a rational thought, especially as it pertains to individual freedoms.

Sure, lib-progs love the word FREE in the larger word freedom. But, only as long as someone else is flipping the tab.

What they miss...and will ALWAYS miss...is that with freedom comes personal responsibility. And, with personal responsibility comes WORK!

In other words..."Freedom isn't FREE!"

To me, that's the crux of the matter.

Yeah, I think many Liberals like words like "free" because they are "feel good" words. But they dont really understand what the word means. Free to many of them means, free to screw everything that walks, free from responsibility, free from individual thought, free to do drugs, free from ever having to see a "hated" Christian cross or bible, free to depend on others, free not to have to work hard, etc.

But they certainly have many double standards when it comes to the word "free." Many dont believe in freedom of religion as it pertains to the hated Christians. They dont believe in Fox News's free speech right to show a different side to the political story other than their normally dishonest version. They certainly dont believe in our right to free speech if and when we dare criticize their ideology. They dont believe in the free right to bare arms. They certainly dont believe in free democratic government when the people vote down their policies, as has been repeatedly proven in Ca when the 9th circuit appeals court throws out the will of the people. Many dont believe in our freedom to gather and protest against their beliefs, as is proven every time a conservative group gets together and they try and block us from being heard.

I've run into some VERY smart lib-progs. In fact, I'll admit that some of them are "smarter" than me in their various field of study.

But, as soon as I throw them a question that falls outside their left-leaning, tree-hugging paradigm, instead of them entertaining it as an intellectual viewpoint, I'm called an idiot, a racist, a cultist, a corporatist, a bigot, a right-winger, a "gun nut", a polluter...and the list goes on.

In fact, there's one chap here who bases his arguments with others on the notion that if WE don't believe HIM, then surely we're a (fill in the blank with one of the terms above).

And, rather than agree to disagree and walk away from the argument in a civil manner, his mission is to decimate the character of others, simply because he hasn't got the muster, energy or persuasiveness to convince others of his views.

Frankly, I see this attitude displayed by most lib-progs. Heck, just turn on MSLSD (aka: MSNBC), you'll find a whole gaggle of numbn^ts there, so consumed with their lib-prog talking points that they wouldn't recognize an original thought, if it came up and bit them in their arse.

So again, I still see it as part of their genetic make-up. But, I'll concede that some of it also has to do with their intellect.

I've run into some VERY smart lib-progs. In fact, I'll admit that some of them are "smarter" than me in their various field of study.

I understand your point Paco but I think what you are referring to are very educated libprogs, not very smart libprogs. There is a difference. Being educated doesn't make you smart. Intelligence is something you are born with, education is something you are taught. That is why they can talk all day about things they are educated in but, they are not intelligent enough to answer a question outside their scope of education. They don't have the ability to listen to a problem and use reason and logic to find an answer. They will always revert back to their liberal training.

I think a good part of the problem with the so called lib-prog intelligentsia can be divided into two areas..First is the arrogance of the so called educated...Somehow all that book learning dulls comon sense. They become convinced that their way is the only way ...Progressive thought has been heavily shaped by the Ivy League Universities ...All that prestige and pride gets these folks all worked up to the point that they believe their own importance above all. They have become the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm ...(The ruling class). That is the second point...They all want to be part of that ruling class, the movers and shakers, the Hollywood elites that hobknob with the politicians, all part of something that the masses are just too dumb and unsophisticated to include.

I think they simply get intoxicated by their power and think that they will b e taken care of by their cronies in government so that they can live the lavish lifestyles they think they deserve. Amazing that this country's leading lefties all live large.

Kind of explains the Che and Mao t-shirts that some of these idiots have been know to wear around. Revolution and the privation of socialism and Statism all sound exciting until you are forced to live under those regimes like everyone else. They assume their wealth and fame will be intact at the end of the day.

I was kidding about your way of thinking.
As for birth right citizenship, how would that get rid of yours or mine? My parents were both citizens of this country and I was born here. That is the requirement in most European countries. The problem we have in this country is the only requirement to being a citizen is to be born here. Doesn't matter if your parents were citizens or not. LIke I said, that was an amendment to the constitution to deal with freed slaves after the civil war. It was never intended to be used in the way it is today. If you live in Germany for instance, and you have a work visa but are not a citizen and you have children born in Germany while you are there under a work visa, they are not citizens of Germany. That is the way it should be here as well.

Huh? If that is what you think I was saying then you obviously misunderstood my point.

We also shouldnt give citicenship to illegals who sneak over and buy houses, because what will happen then, is the dems will start programs guaranteeing home loans to illegals in order to get more of them here, which will bankrupt us!

So true. If illegals start buying houses, they will practically build a sanctuary city within their own home!

That is the second point...They all want to be part of that ruling class, the movers and shakers, the Hollywood elites that hobknob with the politicians, all part of something that the masses are just too dumb and unsophisticated to include.

That is a very good point. The ruling class want to remain in the ruling class. And the only way to do that is to dumb down the educational system. They want to tell people what to think and not HOW to think.

I know that to be the case. I met a teacher like that and all he wanted to do is tell people his opinion and what to think. He wouldn't let students even try to think for themselves. The sad thing is that many of the students grow up thinking the same way as him.

I ended up filing a complaint on him and I was able to demonstrate that he wasn't really teaching class. All he was doing is giving out F's if the answer wasn't the way he wanted it. When I showed the guidance counselor how many F's I was getting and that it wasn't based on the content of the assignment, he gave the teacher a written academic warning.